GP3: Identical Car Shapes

I've seen lots of complaints about all the cars in GP3 having the same exact car shape. What's the gripe? It's not THAT important at all. You can't tell the difference between the shape of a Ferrari and a Benetton at 180 mph anyway! :) ----------------------------------------- Dan Belcher Team Racing Unlimited http://simcrash.00game.com

I hate when I just oppose what people say... but you can! Besides if things like car shapes are left out makes you wonder what else has been left out! Such as the pace lap, red flags and many more... Still I have my hopes up! Oli BEOROCKET Racing: www.beorocket.co.yu "Dan Belcher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I've seen lots of complaints about all the cars in GP3 having the sameexact > car shape. What's the gripe? It's not THAT important at all. You can'ttell > the difference between the shape of a Ferrari and a Benetton at 180 mphanyway! > :) > > ----------------------------------------- > Dan Belcher > Team Racing Unlimited > http://simcrash.00game.com

But the question is whether red flags, pace lap and different car shapes are more essential to making a good F1 sim than for instant good physics, AI and wet weather. Let's assume different car shapes eats some resources (am I correct), I would rather use those resources for a nice wet track than those car shapes. F12000 has them and I hate the game. GC is about putting the essential stuff in to create a good racing game, I don't always agree with his point of view. For instance on the fact that all cars drive like a top class car, but he's just very strong minded that doesn't make his games less. I've said it before and I will say it again, GP3 won't beat GPL but it will be the first since GPL to give me the same sensation I felt when first driving around Watkins Glen in that demo. "Slick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8i7fnk$4ch$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> I hate when I just oppose what people say... but you can! > Besides if things like car shapes are left out makes you wonder what else > has been left out! > Such as the pace lap, red flags and many more... > Still I have my hopes up! > > Oli > BEOROCKET Racing: www.beorocket.co.yu > > "Dan Belcher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I've seen lots of complaints about all the cars in GP3 having the same > exact > > car shape. What's the gripe? It's not THAT important at all. You

can't

Quoted text (11 lines)

> tell > > the difference between the shape of a Ferrari and a Benetton at 180 mph > anyway! > > :) > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > Dan Belcher > > Team Racing Unlimited > > http://simcrash.00game.com > >

Slick <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8i7fnk$4ch$[email hidden]... > I hate when I just oppose what people say... but you can! > Besides if things like car shapes are left out makes you wonder what else > has been left out! > Such as the pace lap, red flags and many more... > Still I have my hopes up! I can't understand this complaint myself.... GP2 will have much more realism than any other sim so far, the rain effects, etc.. are unbeatable.... the graphics look top quality but still people gripe because it doesn't have every little detail that they want..... Geoff has a licence for the next 4 or 5 years.... but the end of this term we should have load of stuff in the sim but no matter hat, come GP52, there will still be things people want that have not been added.... I don't understand either whats the big deal about a pace lap. It's in F12k, every time it starts I jsut click space and skip it... why spent time adding it if most people skip it, and most people DO skip it. Its horrible going so slow and boring for a lap, you crash it you try to warm your tyres and waiting on the grip they go cold again, if you don't qualify on pole you can be sure of a pile-up on the pace lap..... In general, its nice to have, but its not something you ever use. Red flags are nice too but they'll piss you off after a few restarts.... My only gripe is that I'd prefer 10 second stop goes rather than power downs but thats not a big problems as I don't intend to be doing too much gravel hopping:-)

I totally agree with you but If the physics and the AI part are well done along with playable frame rates on various platforms (not like that piece of shit F12K) stuff like red flags and pace laps and all the other little things would make this game immortal just like GPL! Think about it for a sec! GPL is how the racing was back in the 60's! Now if you make a game based on the year 1998! Red flags pace laps radio talk is almost a must! Still if its going to be fun just do drive the car around the circuits (or being lapped in the race) like it is in GPL! you can make a 256 color low res sim that will reside on my HD forever! Oliver BEOROCKET Racing: www.beorocket.co.yu "Harjan Brand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:PRJ15.1235$%[email hidden]... > But the question is whether red flags, pace lap and different car shapesare > more essential to making a good F1 sim than for instant good physics, AIand > wet weather. > > Let's assume different car shapes eats some resources (am I correct), I > would rather use those resources for a nice wet track than those carshapes. > F12000 has them and I hate the game. > > GC is about putting the essential stuff in to create a good racing game, I > don't always agree with his point of view. For instance on the fact thatall > cars drive like a top class car, but he's just very strong minded that > doesn't make his games less. > > I've said it before and I will say it again, GP3 won't beat GPL but itwill > be the first since GPL to give me the same sensation I felt when first > driving around Watkins Glen in that demo.

You have a point there, but we must first define what one considers a "Sim". I want it all! Tire blistering gearbox damage, animated pit crew, Radio talk pit boards, smart AI... Oliver BEOROCKET Racing: www.beorocket.co.yu "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8i8f10$r4u$[email hidden]... > > Slick <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8i7fnk$4ch$[email hidden]... > > I hate when I just oppose what people say... but you can! > > Besides if things like car shapes are left out makes you wonder whatelse > > has been left out! > > Such as the pace lap, red flags and many more... > > Still I have my hopes up! > > I can't understand this complaint myself.... > GP2 will have much more realism than any other sim so far, the raineffects, > etc.. are unbeatable.... the graphics look top quality but still people > gripe because it doesn't have every little detail that they want..... > > Geoff has a licence for the next 4 or 5 years.... but the end of this term > we should have load of stuff in the sim but no matter hat, come GP52,there > will still be things people want that have not been added.... > > I don't understand either whats the big deal about a pace lap. > It's in F12k, every time it starts I jsut click space and skip it... why > spent time adding it if most people skip it, and most people DO skip it.Its > horrible going so slow and boring for a lap, you crash it you try to warm > your tyres and waiting on the grip they go cold again, if you don'tqualify > on pole you can be sure of a pile-up on the pace lap..... > In general, its nice to have, but its not something you ever use. > > Red flags are nice too but they'll piss you off after a few restarts.... > > My only gripe is that I'd prefer 10 second stop goes rather than powerdowns > but thats not a big problems as I don't intend to be doing too much gravel > hopping:-) > >

Slick <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8i8q3p$sgt$[email hidden]... > You have a point there, but we must first define what one considers a"Sim". > I want it all! Tire blistering gearbox damage, animated pit crew, Radiotalk > pit boards, smart AI... Smart AI? Even God wasn't successful when trying to implement that one:-)

What I find strange is the fact that so many people are bringing up this point now. I've been following some of the previews & interviews and we have known for at least six months or more that GP3 would have all cars using the same shape. Michael "Dan Belcher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I've seen lots of complaints about all the cars in GP3 having the sameexact > car shape. What's the gripe? It's not THAT important at all. You can'ttell > the difference between the shape of a Ferrari and a Benetton at 180 mphanyway! > :) > > ----------------------------------------- > Dan Belcher > Team Racing Unlimited > http://simcrash.00game.com

I know it would be very cool and all...but to me if you stripped off all of the paint I would have a hard time telling one car from another (aside from high/low nose), what with all of the wings and scoops and all...IMO modern F1 cars are way too 'busy', too many wings and scoops and diffusers and what-have-you and thingamajiggers and whatzamahoozits. IRL and CART cars are, on the other hand, much smoother and simpler. No extra wings stuck on here or there just to try to get that little tiny bit more at the sacrifice of every last bit of looks. -- Kirk Lane [email hidden] GPLRank: 229.48 ICQ: 28171652 AIM: Kirker64 (IM me twice so I can reply...using a beta client) "The time has come for me to kill this game Now open wide and say my name" - "Space Lord", Monster Magnet Slick <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8i7fnk$4ch$[email hidden]... > I hate when I just oppose what people say... but you can! > Besides if things like car shapes are left out makes you wonder what else > has been left out! > Such as the pace lap, red flags and many more... > Still I have my hopes up! > > Oli > BEOROCKET Racing: www.beorocket.co.yu > > "Dan Belcher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I've seen lots of complaints about all the cars in GP3 having the same > exact > > car shape. What's the gripe? It's not THAT important at all. You can't > tell > > the difference between the shape of a Ferrari and a Benetton at 180 mph > anyway! > > :) > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > Dan Belcher > > Team Racing Unlimited > > http://simcrash.00game.com > >

ONe of my favorite topics...One of the best looking cars were the three somewhat slow ( :< ) Indycars from the Vel-Parnelli Jones team, I "think" 1972. They originally had two small vee wings up front and two large Vee wings just behind the driver, with NO large horizontal wing at the back. Flat nose, sloped sides and F18ish tail fins rising up outta the back... Now those current F1 BUGS --the Ferrari reminds me of a preying mantiss the way it sits up above its front wheels--Those are UGLY! Oh btw, the Vee Wings were cut off From Unser Sr, Andretti, and the other car before Qualifying cuz the drivers never had the confidence to push the car to the limit...Or it was just a slug... :) dave henrie Kirk Lane wrote:

Quoted text (49 lines)

> > I know it would be very cool and all...but to me if you stripped off all of > the paint I would have a hard time telling one car from another (aside from > high/low nose), what with all of the wings and scoops and all...IMO modern > F1 cars are way too 'busy', too many wings and scoops and diffusers and > what-have-you and thingamajiggers and whatzamahoozits. IRL and CART cars > are, on the other hand, much smoother and simpler. No extra wings stuck on > here or there just to try to get that little tiny bit more at the sacrifice > of every last bit of looks. > > -- > Kirk Lane > [email hidden] > GPLRank: 229.48 > ICQ: 28171652 > AIM: Kirker64 > (IM me twice so I can reply...using a beta client) > > "The time has come for me to kill this game > Now open wide and say my name" > - "Space Lord", Monster Magnet > Slick <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8i7fnk$4ch$[email hidden]... > > I hate when I just oppose what people say... but you can! > > Besides if things like car shapes are left out makes you wonder what else > > has been left out! > > Such as the pace lap, red flags and many more... > > Still I have my hopes up! > > > > Oli > > BEOROCKET Racing: www.beorocket.co.yu > > > > "Dan Belcher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > I've seen lots of complaints about all the cars in GP3 having the same > > exact > > > car shape. What's the gripe? It's not THAT important at all. You > can't > > tell > > > the difference between the shape of a Ferrari and a Benetton at 180 mph > > anyway! > > > :) > > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > > Dan Belcher > > > Team Racing Unlimited > > > http://simcrash.00game.com > > > >

Jo Helsen wrote: > > In general my opinion is that the strickt rules of aerodynamics > haven't helped the looks of the cars.... Efficiency comes first and > often kills the looks IMO. > > JoH I always had quite the opposite experience, especially considering the planes. The most aerodynamically efficient planes always look the best, and according to many pilots also fly the best. It must be an evolutionary thing when we were still fish and the hydrodynamically effective specimens must have looked the sexiest to us ;). -Gregor

Jo Helsen wrote: > > Could be true with airplanes. But much less with F1 cars. Although > obviously beauty is in the eye of the beholder. > Yes, but you must know that F1 cars should be ugly almost by their definition and the rules that govern them. It amazes me how some actually manage to look as good as they do, as the specified design is rather fussy. They only start looking good once you understand them, I think, and their aesthetics is more intellectual than visceral.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > >It must be an > >evolutionary thing when we were still fish and the hydrodynamically > >effective specimens must have looked the sexiest to us ;). > > Well, they only look sexier per definition to YOU. So my logical mind > concludes that you are closer to fish than the majority... >

<looking out of the fishtank, coughing out water to be able to shout> Now where did you get such a crazy idea? > > You not only seem to have a reptile-brain like most of us, but > underneath it a fish-brain as well <G> ;-) > > JoH -Gregor

On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 04:22:48 GMT, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> ONe of my favorite topics...One of the best looking cars were the >three somewhat slow ( :< ) Indycars from the Vel-Parnelli Jones team, >I "think" 1972. They originally had two small vee wings up front and >two large Vee wings just behind the driver, with NO large horizontal >wing at the back. Flat nose, sloped sides and F18ish tail fins rising >up outta the back... Now those current F1 BUGS --the Ferrari reminds >me of a preying mantiss the way it sits up above its front wheels--Those >are UGLY! > Oh btw, the Vee Wings were cut off From Unser Sr, Andretti, and the >other car before Qualifying cuz the drivers never had the confidence to >push the car to the limit...Or it was just a slug... :) >dave henrie

This is going to be a long thread... :-) Would love some websites with past F1 car pictures to refer to! Often, a new shape needs to "grow" on you. Car starts off as ugly looking but ends up quite nice after getting used to. Some great cars (looks) that I remember: - the 1991 (?) green "SPRITE" Jordan With Bertrand Gachot / De Cesaris - mid-70's Brabham cars (Checkter (white) , Lauda (red "Parmalat")) - green 79 Lotus (Andretti?) - one of the early 90's Ferrari (Berger/Alesi) Need a picture here.. In general my opinion is that the strickt rules of aerodynamics haven't helped the looks of the cars.... Efficiency comes first and often kills the looks IMO. JoH

On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:28:20 +0200, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Jo Helsen wrote: >> >> In general my opinion is that the strickt rules of aerodynamics >> haven't helped the looks of the cars.... Efficiency comes first and >> often kills the looks IMO. >> >> JoH > >I always had quite the opposite experience, especially considering the >planes. The most aerodynamically efficient planes always look the best, >and according to many pilots also fly the best.

Could be true with airplanes. But much less with F1 cars. Although obviously beauty is in the eye of the beholder. >It must be an >evolutionary thing when we were still fish and the hydrodynamically >effective specimens must have looked the sexiest to us ;). Well, they only look sexier per definition to YOU. So my logical mind concludes that you are closer to fish than the majority... You not only seem to have a reptile-brain like most of us, but underneath it a fish-brain as well <G> ;-) JoH

Sure it's not necessary to understand something to look good. It's just that some things (like F1 cars) do not look good as such, but only after understanding them. You associate speed, power and cornering ability with them. You imagine sitting in them and how they would feel when you tried to trail-brake them and then power out of a corner. A female friend of mine saw a (1997, I think) Ferrari F1 car up close that was on exhibition here and she said it looks nothing special, cheap in fact due to its plasticky looks. I, on the other hand, marveled at the rear wishbones, air intakes and the sticky looking rubber on the wheels. We would, on the other hand, probably both agree that a McLaren F1 road car does, indeed, look good. Yet quite the opposite applies sometimes; would women look as good if you thoroughly understood them? Now there's a thought. :) -Gregor Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > It is not necessary, Gregor, to "understand" something before it looks good. > > I don't, and never will, understand women but by heavens mate, a LOT of them > look pretty bloody good from where I'm sitting!!! :-) > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- >

Where you at BK? The Beach? -- Oli BeoRocket Racing http://www.beorocket.co.yu/ "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > It is not necessary, Gregor, to "understand" something before it looks good. > > I don't, and never will, understand women but by heavens mate, a LOT of them > look pretty bloody good from where I'm sitting!!! :-) > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > ---------------------------

I loooove the way the current F1 cars look. Fascinating too. David G Fisher "Kirk Lane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8i9j6n$4q4$[email hidden]... > I know it would be very cool and all...but to me if you stripped off allof > the paint I would have a hard time telling one car from another (asidefrom > high/low nose), what with all of the wings and scoops and all...IMO modern > F1 cars are way too 'busy', too many wings and scoops and diffusers and > what-have-you and thingamajiggers and whatzamahoozits. IRL and CART cars > are, on the other hand, much smoother and simpler. No extra wings stuckon > here or there just to try to get that little tiny bit more at thesacrifice

Quoted text (17 lines)

> of every last bit of looks. > > -- > Kirk Lane > [email hidden] > GPLRank: 229.48 > ICQ: 28171652 > AIM: Kirker64 > (IM me twice so I can reply...using a beta client) > > "The time has come for me to kill this game > Now open wide and say my name" > - "Space Lord", Monster Magnet > Slick <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8i7fnk$4ch$[email hidden]... > > I hate when I just oppose what people say... but you can! > > Besides if things like car shapes are left out makes you wonder what

else

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > has been left out! > > Such as the pace lap, red flags and many more... > > Still I have my hopes up! > > > > Oli > > BEOROCKET Racing: www.beorocket.co.yu > > > > "Dan Belcher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > I've seen lots of complaints about all the cars in GP3 having the same > > exact > > > car shape. What's the gripe? It's not THAT important at all. You > can't > > tell > > > the difference between the shape of a Ferrari and a Benetton at 180

mph

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > anyway! > > > :) > > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > > Dan Belcher > > > Team Racing Unlimited > > > http://simcrash.00game.com > > > > > >

It is not necessary, Gregor, to "understand" something before it looks good. I don't, and never will, understand women but by heavens mate, a LOT of them look pretty bloody good from where I'm sitting!!! :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Jo Helsen wrote: > > > > Could be true with airplanes. But much less with F1 cars. Although > > obviously beauty is in the eye of the beholder. > > > > Yes, but you must know that F1 cars should be ugly almost by their > definition and the rules that govern them. It amazes me how some > actually manage to look as good as they do, as the specified design is > rather fussy. They only start looking good once you understand them, I > think, and their aesthetics is more intellectual than visceral. > > > > > >It must be an > > >evolutionary thing when we were still fish and the hydrodynamically > > >effective specimens must have looked the sexiest to us ;). > > > > Well, they only look sexier per definition to YOU. So my logical mind > > concludes that you are closer to fish than the majority... > > > > <looking out of the fishtank, coughing out water to be able to shout> > Now where did you get such a crazy idea? > > > > > You not only seem to have a reptile-brain like most of us, but > > underneath it a fish-brain as well <G> ;-) > > > > JoH > > > -Gregor

YEah you're on the other side of the Globe! I can see that it's Winter there (while the Summer just began here), but I'm sorry it has to be the 2k year not the '83! -- Oli BeoRocket Racing http://www.beorocket.co.yu/ "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > HAAAA! It's winter here. Oli.....right now minus 5 degrees Celcius so no, I > wasn't at the beach! > > I was referring to the Pirelli calendar (from 1983) that I have adorning my > study wall. > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- >

Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > No....you've missed the point entirely. > > I don't understand surrealism but I love a lot of the art. > I don't understand how the universe works but images of galaxies and nebulae > and planets are gorgeous. > I understand, to varying degrees of knowledge, how current F1 cars work and > why they look like they do but they STILL look ugly to me. > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- >

I don't think we are disagreeing here. I am just claiming there are different ways towards aesthetics. Sometimes the beauty of an event is in the experience of the event itself, and this is the beauty that usually strikes us most. This is, I think, what you are talking about. Yet sometimes the beauty comes from seeing where and how an event came about. This can have just a strong effect as the impression of a beautiful event, but requires knowledge behind it to enjoy. Still, sometimes such appreciation of, for example, art can degenerate into something really strange. Have you ever listened to music experts discussing some piece only the author could love? They will speak about minutae that so easily escape the ears of a casual listener, and they would rave about those for hours. Sometimes they (usually the self-proclaimed experts, though, not the real ones) even don't care how the piece may sound overall. True great art is able to fascinate on all levels, though. You said you do not understand surrealism (which I don't believe, though :) ), but you are fascinated by the paintings. Yet understanding the motivations behind the painting and the details in it, and at the same time seeing the overall result is where the greatest beauty lies. And this does not apply to art specifically. You also mention the galaxies and nebulae. They are awesome in its own right. I also consider myself lucky to be able to know quite a lot about their origin and dynamics as well, and that makes it all even more fascinating for me! Or, when I start explaining to people how the rainbow comes about, they would ask me, as a physicist, how can I even enjoy its beauty when I analyze it so much? I tell them that knowing how it comes about makes me even more fascinated about the event. It reaches me on both the visceral and intellectual level, and that's what makes it even more beautiful to me. Back to F1 cars; they fascinate mostly on the intellectual level, while as an overall shape they are rather messy. It is then up to the individual which aspect of aesthetics they are most susceptible to, and this is where we disagree. But we all know that aesthetical preferences of individuals cannot really be discussed. It just might be that the F1 cars look plain ugly to you and not to me, and that's it ! :) -Gregor

Jo Helsen wrote: > > You read too many Richard Dawkins books :-) > > JoH Actually, I've never read any. But it does seem like I should :). -Gregor

Jo Helsen wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:52:21 +0200, Gregor Veble > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >And this does not apply to art specifically. You also mention the > >galaxies and nebulae. They are awesome in its own right. I also consider > >myself lucky to be able to know quite a lot about their origin and > >dynamics as well, and that makes it all even more fascinating for me! > >Or, when I start explaining to people how the rainbow comes about, they > >would ask me, as a physicist, how can I even enjoy its beauty when I > >analyze it so much? > > You read too many Richard Dawkins books :-)

Glad somebody does! -- Steven Crook-Dawkins

No....you've missed the point entirely. I don't understand surrealism but I love a lot of the art. I don't understand how the universe works but images of galaxies and nebulae and planets are gorgeous. I understand, to varying degrees of knowledge, how current F1 cars work and why they look like they do but they STILL look ugly to me. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Sure it's not necessary to understand something to look good. It's just > that some things (like F1 cars) do not look good as such, but only after > understanding them. You associate speed, power and cornering ability > with them. You imagine sitting in them and how they would feel when you > tried to trail-brake them and then power out of a corner. A female > friend of mine saw a (1997, I think) Ferrari F1 car up close that was on > exhibition here and she said it looks nothing special, cheap in fact due > to its plasticky looks. I, on the other hand, marveled at the rear > wishbones, air intakes and the sticky looking rubber on the wheels. We > would, on the other hand, probably both agree that a McLaren F1 road car > does, indeed, look good. > > Yet quite the opposite applies sometimes; would women look as good if > you thoroughly understood them? Now there's a thought. :) > > -Gregor > > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > It is not necessary, Gregor, to "understand" something before it looks good. > > > > I don't, and never will, understand women but by heavens mate, a LOT of them > > look pretty bloody good from where I'm sitting!!! :-) > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > >

HAAAA! It's winter here. Oli.....right now minus 5 degrees Celcius so no, I wasn't at the beach! I was referring to the Pirelli calendar (from 1983) that I have adorning my study wall. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Slick <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8iau7v$45d$[email hidden]... > Where you at BK? The Beach? > > -- > Oli > BeoRocket Racing > http://www.beorocket.co.yu/ > > > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > It is not necessary, Gregor, to "understand" something before it looks > good. > > > > I don't, and never will, understand women but by heavens mate, a LOT of > them > > look pretty bloody good from where I'm sitting!!! :-) > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > >

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:52:21 +0200, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>And this does not apply to art specifically. You also mention the >galaxies and nebulae. They are awesome in its own right. I also consider >myself lucky to be able to know quite a lot about their origin and >dynamics as well, and that makes it all even more fascinating for me! >Or, when I start explaining to people how the rainbow comes about, they >would ask me, as a physicist, how can I even enjoy its beauty when I >analyze it so much?

You read too many Richard Dawkins books :-) JoH

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:02:35 +0100, Steven Crook-Dawkins <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > >Jo Helsen wrote: > >> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:52:21 +0200, Gregor Veble >> <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >And this does not apply to art specifically. You also mention the >> >galaxies and nebulae. They are awesome in its own right. I also consider >> >myself lucky to be able to know quite a lot about their origin and >> >dynamics as well, and that makes it all even more fascinating for me! >> >Or, when I start explaining to people how the rainbow comes about, they >> >would ask me, as a physicist, how can I even enjoy its beauty when I >> >analyze it so much? >> >> You read too many Richard Dawkins books :-) > >Glad somebody does! > >-- >Steven Crook-Dawkins >

He reads too many RICHARD Dawkins books. JoH

Jo Helsen wrote: > He reads too many RICHARD Dawkins books. > > JoH No need to shout - I was joking. -- Steven Crook-Dawkins - Research Assistant - University of York.

Steven Crook-Dawkins wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Jo Helsen wrote: > > > He reads too many RICHARD Dawkins books. > > > > JoH > > No need to shout - I was joking. > -- > Steven Crook-Dawkins - Research Assistant - University of York.

Yet the newsgroup is wondering; is there a relation? ;) -Gregor

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:00:16 +0200, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Jo Helsen wrote: >> >> You read too many Richard Dawkins books :-) >> >> JoH > >Actually, I've never read any. But it does seem like I should :). > >-Gregor

He wrote a book of which the title specifically refers to explaining the mystery of the rainbow. You must be on his wavelength somewhere. JoH

No - no relation. I should explain: I do loads of presentations, (on Aircraft safety - not Richard's book!) almost every time I'm introduced to an audience the Richard Dawkins book (Selfish Gene) is mentioned. I guess it drives me a bit batty - hence my "joke". Sorry - I wasn't funny, its off topic - I'll shut up now. Gregor Veble wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Steven Crook-Dawkins wrote: > > > > Jo Helsen wrote: > > > > > He reads too many RICHARD Dawkins books. > > > > > > JoH > > > > No need to shout - I was joking. > > -- > > Yet the newsgroup is wondering; is there a relation? ;) > > -Gregor

-- Steven Crook-Dawkins

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > I think you're getting a bit too deep for me, Gregor! > > I simply know what I like and what I don't like. I like the shape of a 1967 > Eagle-Weslake. I even like the shape of a 1989 Ferrari. I don't like the > shape of a 2000 Ferrari. End of story. Agreed, but I'll admit that I think Rubens' car looks better than Michaels :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > I think you're getting a bit too deep for me, Gregor! > > I simply know what I like and what I don't like. I like the shape of a 1967 > Eagle-Weslake. I even like the shape of a 1989 Ferrari. I don't like the > shape of a 2000 Ferrari. End of story. >

ditto! dave henrie

Quoted text (70 lines)

> -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > > > No....you've missed the point entirely. > > > > > > I don't understand surrealism but I love a lot of the art. > > > I don't understand how the universe works but images of galaxies and > nebulae > > > and planets are gorgeous. > > > I understand, to varying degrees of knowledge, how current F1 cars work > and > > > why they look like they do but they STILL look ugly to me. > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > Bruce Kennewell, > > > Canberra, Australia. > > > --------------------------- > > > > > > > I don't think we are disagreeing here. I am just claiming there are > > different ways towards aesthetics. Sometimes the beauty of an event is > > in the experience of the event itself, and this is the beauty that > > usually strikes us most. This is, I think, what you are talking about. > > > > Yet sometimes the beauty comes from seeing where and how an event came > > about. This can have just a strong effect as the impression of a > > beautiful event, but requires knowledge behind it to enjoy. Still, > > sometimes such appreciation of, for example, art can degenerate into > > something really strange. Have you ever listened to music experts > > discussing some piece only the author could love? They will speak about > > minutae that so easily escape the ears of a casual listener, and they > > would rave about those for hours. Sometimes they (usually the > > self-proclaimed experts, though, not the real ones) even don't care how > > the piece may sound overall. > > > > True great art is able to fascinate on all levels, though. You said you > > do not understand surrealism (which I don't believe, though :) ), but > > you are fascinated by the paintings. Yet understanding the motivations > > behind the painting and the details in it, and at the same time seeing > > the overall result is where the greatest beauty lies. > > > > And this does not apply to art specifically. You also mention the > > galaxies and nebulae. They are awesome in its own right. I also consider > > myself lucky to be able to know quite a lot about their origin and > > dynamics as well, and that makes it all even more fascinating for me! > > Or, when I start explaining to people how the rainbow comes about, they > > would ask me, as a physicist, how can I even enjoy its beauty when I > > analyze it so much? I tell them that knowing how it comes about makes me > > even more fascinated about the event. It reaches me on both the visceral > > and intellectual level, and that's what makes it even more beautiful to > > me. > > > > Back to F1 cars; they fascinate mostly on the intellectual level, while > > as an overall shape they are rather messy. It is then up to the > > individual which aspect of aesthetics they are most susceptible to, and > > this is where we disagree. > > > > But we all know that aesthetical preferences of individuals cannot > > really be discussed. It just might be that the F1 cars look plain ugly > > to you and not to me, and that's it ! :) > > > > -Gregor

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:38:59 +0100, Steven Crook-Dawkins <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > >Jo Helsen wrote: > >> He reads too many RICHARD Dawkins books. >> >> JoH > >No need to shout - I was joking. >-- >Steven Crook-Dawkins - Research Assistant - University of York.

I wasn't shouting. I was only stressing. I don't know your books so it could have been a mixup. :o) JoH

You obviously have not seen the 1983 Pirelli calendar then?! :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Slick <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8icki2$72b$[email hidden]... > but I'm > sorry it has to be the 2k year not the '83! >

I think you're getting a bit too deep for me, Gregor! I simply know what I like and what I don't like. I like the shape of a 1967 Eagle-Weslake. I even like the shape of a 1989 Ferrari. I don't like the shape of a 2000 Ferrari. End of story. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > No....you've missed the point entirely. > > > > I don't understand surrealism but I love a lot of the art. > > I don't understand how the universe works but images of galaxies and nebulae > > and planets are gorgeous. > > I understand, to varying degrees of knowledge, how current F1 cars work and > > why they look like they do but they STILL look ugly to me. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > I don't think we are disagreeing here. I am just claiming there are > different ways towards aesthetics. Sometimes the beauty of an event is > in the experience of the event itself, and this is the beauty that > usually strikes us most. This is, I think, what you are talking about. > > Yet sometimes the beauty comes from seeing where and how an event came > about. This can have just a strong effect as the impression of a > beautiful event, but requires knowledge behind it to enjoy. Still, > sometimes such appreciation of, for example, art can degenerate into > something really strange. Have you ever listened to music experts > discussing some piece only the author could love? They will speak about > minutae that so easily escape the ears of a casual listener, and they > would rave about those for hours. Sometimes they (usually the > self-proclaimed experts, though, not the real ones) even don't care how > the piece may sound overall. > > True great art is able to fascinate on all levels, though. You said you > do not understand surrealism (which I don't believe, though :) ), but > you are fascinated by the paintings. Yet understanding the motivations > behind the painting and the details in it, and at the same time seeing > the overall result is where the greatest beauty lies. > > And this does not apply to art specifically. You also mention the > galaxies and nebulae. They are awesome in its own right. I also consider > myself lucky to be able to know quite a lot about their origin and > dynamics as well, and that makes it all even more fascinating for me! > Or, when I start explaining to people how the rainbow comes about, they > would ask me, as a physicist, how can I even enjoy its beauty when I > analyze it so much? I tell them that knowing how it comes about makes me > even more fascinated about the event. It reaches me on both the visceral > and intellectual level, and that's what makes it even more beautiful to > me. > > Back to F1 cars; they fascinate mostly on the intellectual level, while > as an overall shape they are rather messy. It is then up to the > individual which aspect of aesthetics they are most susceptible to, and > this is where we disagree. > > But we all know that aesthetical preferences of individuals cannot > really be discussed. It just might be that the F1 cars look plain ugly > to you and not to me, and that's it ! :) > > -Gregor

I wasn't that big on Calendars when I was 11 years old... -- Oli BeoRocket Racing http://www.beorocket.co.yu/ "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > You obviously have not seen the 1983 Pirelli calendar then?! :-) > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Slick <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8icki2$72b$[email hidden]... > > but I'm > > sorry it has to be the 2k year not the '83! > > > > >

No...not "better". I'd rate it as "the less offensive of the two"! :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > I think you're getting a bit too deep for me, Gregor! > > > > I simply know what I like and what I don't like. I like the shape of a 1967 > > Eagle-Weslake. I even like the shape of a 1989 Ferrari. I don't like the > > shape of a 2000 Ferrari. End of story. > > Agreed, but I'll admit that I think Rubens' car looks better than > Michaels :-) > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ > "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ > > * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * > "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

I see...!!? -- Oli BeoRocket Racing http://www.beorocket.co.yu/ "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > For example...here's one......for the very last one of this year. > (Note that some earlier ones...1980's, 1970's...can be had for considerably > less.......around 60 English Pounds.) > > http://cgi.ebay.com.au/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=355497446 > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > ---------------------------

I meant now........you might find the occassional one come up on Ebay but be prepared to rob a bank. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Slick <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8ifag9$b19$[email hidden]... > I wasn't that big on Calendars when I was 11 years old... > > > -- > Oli > BeoRocket Racing > http://www.beorocket.co.yu/ > > > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > You obviously have not seen the 1983 Pirelli calendar then?! :-) > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > Slick <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:8icki2$72b$[email hidden]... > > > but I'm > > > sorry it has to be the 2k year not the '83! > > > > > > > > > > >

For example...here's one......for the very last one of this year. (Note that some earlier ones...1980's, 1970's...can be had for considerably less.......around 60 English Pounds.) http://cgi.ebay.com.au/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=355497446 -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I meant now........you might find the occassional one come up on Ebay but be > prepared to rob a bank. > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Slick <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8ifag9$b19$[email hidden]... > > I wasn't that big on Calendars when I was 11 years old... > > > > > > -- > > Oli > > BeoRocket Racing > > http://www.beorocket.co.yu/ > > > > > > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > You obviously have not seen the 1983 Pirelli calendar then?! :-) > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > Bruce Kennewell, > > > Canberra, Australia. > > > --------------------------- > > > > > > Slick <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:8icki2$72b$[email hidden]... > > > > but I'm > > > > sorry it has to be the 2k year not the '83! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >